It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 639
377
<< 636  637  638    640  641  642 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why do you need this grade of evidence from others when you do not ever provide it yourself??


What evidence did I not provide? Please be specific.




posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Would the real Jarrah White please stand up!?

So, now you believe FoosM is Jarrah White ?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
How about YOU?

Are you Neil Armstrong ?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why do you need this grade of evidence from others when you do not ever provide it yourself??


What evidence did I not provide? Please be specific.


specifically you have not provided any evidence that the moon landing was a hoax.

Even more specifically you have not provided any evidence that the Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt is a factual document - although you have presented it as such, and demand that others provide evidence that it is NOT.

Glad to oblige

edit on 1-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by ProudBird
How about YOU?

Are you Neil Armstrong ?


:lol



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Enhancing is working with the excisting data already in the image. It's exactly the same as fine tuning colors or exposure.
edit on 1/11/2011 by PsykoOps because: rewrote the whole post... bleh

At the original resolution the flag would have been less that a pixel..
The pics shown to the public were far more detailed than that..

That is "NOT" working with existing data...


Are you claiming these images are manipulated? Got any proof of that? If they bring out better detail after enhancement then why is it that only the details relevant to the images are better after enhancing? Wouldn't that enhance everything and not just the detail in the relevant parts of the image?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



Are you Neil Armstrong ?


If Neil ever happens to read this, or if anyone [ Jim Oberg, I'm looking at you ] could arrange for me to meet the man, I would be honored.

Friend of mine works for a major hotel chain...and recently "Buzz" Aldrin was a guest. (This was a few months back.....he was attending something in Congress, and stayed nearby Capitol Hill, in the hotel).

My only other *up close and personal* encounter with a real Astronaut was Story Musgrave. He was on my flight (that I was Captain) some years ago....from Houston to Orlando. We chatted a bit on the automated shuttle that is part of the Orlando Airport....takes you form the terminals to the main check-in and baggage claim areas.....



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why do you need this grade of evidence from others when you do not ever provide it yourself??


What evidence did I not provide? Please be specific.


specifically you have not provided any evidence that the moon landing was a hoax.

Even more specifically you have not provided any evidence that the Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt is a factual document - although you have presented it as such, and demand that others provide evidence that it is NOT.



Let me try this again,
What evidence did I not provide? Please be specific.
What was the purpose of presenting the Torbitt Document?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Enhancing is working with the excisting data already in the image. It's exactly the same as fine tuning colors or exposure.
edit on 1/11/2011 by PsykoOps because: rewrote the whole post... bleh

At the original resolution the flag would have been less that a pixel..
The pics shown to the public were far more detailed than that..

That is "NOT" working with existing data...


Are you claiming these images are manipulated?


Lets flip the question.
If the images were manipulated, how could we tell?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Even more specifically you have not provided any evidence that the Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt is a factual document - although you have presented it as such, and demand that others provide evidence that it is NOT.



Let me try this again,
What evidence did I not provide? Please be specific.


which part of the description above are you having trouble with??


What was the purpose of presenting the Torbitt Document?


You presented it - don't you know??


as far as I can see you presented it in an attempt to divert attention from your recent failures to present any evidence supporting your contention that the moon landing was a hoax - specifically your ignorance of the nature of rocket fuels, exhaust plumes and Apollo 8's mission and vehicles.

Havingbeen exposed as an ignoramus on such subjects you are attempting to divert the discussion away from them.

But that's just speculation on my part because you posted a long quotes and extracts in your message without actually giving any commentary about what you thougt they were - which is probably against the T&C of ATS....but I find your antics amusing so I have no great problem with it.
edit on 1-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Beings you hoaxers are always so lazy and want us believers to come up with all the evidence supporting our claim, saying things like "I want proof of how everything is possible with scientific evidence to back every little thing up, all while I sit here and do nothing", instead of actually looking for yourselves, I'm going to turn the tables on you.

Here's an extremely easily found link, and I want every single one of you to pick apart each piece of evidence (without leaving a single thing out) and tell me why and how it's fake with real scientific evidence to support your claims, with real, respected, members of the scientific community backing up your evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

k thx.

Remember, I don't want a response saying "that one picture could possibly be faked, so it's all fake". You have to say how everything is fake or else GTFO.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM

Even more specifically you have not provided any evidence that the Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt is a factual document - although you have presented it as such, and demand that others provide evidence that it is NOT.



Let me try this again,
What evidence did I not provide? Please be specific.


which part of the description above are you having trouble with??


What was the purpose of presenting the Torbitt Document?


You presented it - don't you know??



In conclusion you dont even know what you were talking about.
Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Remember, I don't want a response saying "that one picture could possibly be faked, so it's all fake". You have to say how everything is fake or else GTFO.


Aren't you the guy who believes in UFO's?
And you base this on what exactly?

It appears that you want us to validate your fantasies or myths.
Thats impossible. I cant prove the existence of UFOs, nor can
I, and neither can NASA, prove that men walked on the moon.
Its just your belief.

See, what some of us are doing is simply analyzing the
conspiracy theory that NASA lied about men walking on the moon.
None of us here came up with the conspiracy. It was already out there.
So all we can do is look at how strong that theory is.

So far, this theory is looking stronger each day as new information comes to light.

We know have more evidence that the CIA infiltrated NASA.
An organization whose job is to lie and obscure the truth.

We have a mismatches of photo and video evidence.

NASA has lost or destroyed valuable material related to Apollo.

We have astronauts contradicting themselves.

We got props showing up in strange places, that could have been used
for faking the photos and videos.

We have statements that the lunar rocks and soils are contaminated, and can be found on Earth.

and much more.


By the way... why are you dodging this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...







edit on 1-11-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
The thrust hits the first stage and what do we see happening?


We see the effects of the thrust hitting the first stage, but no plume is visible from the nozzle itself.


Ok, so the stage is a distance away, and we can see, in space, the effects of an "invisible" plume hitting that object. Can you say you see the same thing happened in any of the ascent videos? Either from hitting the lower LM stage, or even the ground? And if not, why dont you think this happened?





Secondly, Im sure if we watched from the other side, we would see a brightly hot glowing nozzle.


Yes you would. You can also see it on the Apollo 17 LM lift off video. When it pitches over you can see a small glowing white dot in the center were the rocket would be. Just find yourself a good quality version of it and give it a watch.


Well, thats the whole point, I do see the small glowing dot, but I expect to see a brightly hot glowing dot.


jra

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Cmon Bird, they NEVER denied the pics were enhanced more than double their actual resolution actually..


They (NASA) never doubled the resolution. They have always shown the images at their normal resolution. When the LRO first entered Lunar orbit in 2009, it was in its commissioning phase with an orbit of 30km x 199km (with the periapsis over the south pole) and it took images of the Apollo sites at ~1m/pixel. Then they lowered the orbit to 50km and the LRO began taking images of the of the Moon and the Apollo sites at ~50cm/pixel. And then just a few months ago they performed some station-keeping maneuvers that brought the LRO down to as low as 22km and they imaged some of the Apollo sites at 25cm/pixel. Due to the lowered altitude and the increased speed, that cause some blurring of the images, so those ones did need to be resampled, but they were not enhanced beyond there normal resolution.

The only LRO Apollo images that have been deconvolved and enhanced is from a youtube user by the name of "GoneToPlaid". Perhaps that is what you were thinking of?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Aren't you the guy who believes in UFO's?
And you base this on what exactly?


I believe in the possibility of aliens yes. The POSSIBILITY of aliens, meaning I entertain both sides of the spectrum. I would also like to note that UFO's are FACT. The name Unidentified Flying Object means exactly that, and does not state anywhere that there are aliens flying them, or that they are even a plane or craft. It's just an object that is unidentified and happens to be flying. Period.


It appears that you want us to validate your fantasies or myths.
Thats impossible.


Fantasies? Myths? I'm providing proof (if you cared to look at the link), and you aren't giving me any reasons to the contrary. STILL.




So far, this theory is looking stronger each day as new information comes to light.


Actually, it's the exact opposite. You would realize that if you had an IQ above 140. Actually, a chimp with an IQ of 10 could see that.


We know have more evidence that the CIA infiltrated NASA.
An organization whose job is to lie and obscure the truth.


Proof from reputable source please.


We have a mismatches of photo and video evidence.


Proof from reputable source please.


NASA has lost or destroyed valuable material related to Apollo.


Proof, they INTENTIONALLY destroyed valuable materal, from reputable source please.


We have astronauts contradicting themselves.


40 years is a long time to forget or blur your memory. If you did any research on memories you might be enlightened as to why things like this happen. Also, proof from reputable source please.


We got props showing up in strange places, that could have been used
for faking the photos and videos.


Proof from reputable source please.


We have statements that the lunar rocks and soils are contaminated, and can be found on Earth.


Proof from reputable source please.


and much more.


Please elaborate. I'd love to hear it. As always, proof from reputable source please.


By the way... why are you dodging this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm not dodging anything. All you have to do is go back and look at my MULTIPLE posts relating to the multiple shadows and you will see I personally proved that theory wrong without a doubt.

Here's just one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Might I add, you've managed to dodge every single one of my posts that you couldn't think up a way to prove me wrong, which is ALL of them, including my previous post. You didn't even bother trying to prove any of the info in the link wrong, with not a single shred of evidence.

Keep in mind, it's not our job to educate you, or prove historical fact, it's your job as a conspiracy theorist to prove historical fact wrong, and you have not done that. Here's what circumstantial evidence means:


Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki


By the way... why are you dodging this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm not dodging anything. All you have to do is go back and look at my MULTIPLE posts relating to the multiple shadows and you will see I personally proved that theory wrong without a doubt.

Here's just one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Um no.




The topography of the moon makes the shadows LOOK like they're going in different directions,


1. You aknowledge that the shadows look like they are going different directions. Thanks. Thats what I was pointing out.

2. You have not been on the moon to validate the location. Nor, unless you want to admit it, were on the location where that photos was staged.




when they really aren't. Let me ask you guys a question,


1. Asking a question is not proving anything one way or the other. Its just asking a question. As in, you dont know.




if there are so many different lights that are making all these different shadows, then why are all the shadows lines so crisp and defined?


1. Now here is the answer to your question: Compositing, touch ups. Already stated numerous times without dispute.




If there were multiple light sources, all of the shadows would be effected, meaning you would have lots of different shadows coming from the same object, giving it a very blurred edge.


1. See above, when a photo is faked, it does not have to follow the rules of physics.



Why is it that I always have to hold peoples hand? Are people really that stupid?



Maybe people assume you need help crossing the street. IDK, why do you ask and what does it have to do with the Apollo conspiracy?

Now, let me inform you that the shadow post you made, does not in any way answer the question
regarding the 18 photos supposedly taken in 25-30 seconds. These and many other subjects are cases open on this thread.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

1. You aknowledge that the shadows look like they are going different directions. Thanks. Thats what I was pointing out.


1. Your grammar, your intellectual ineptitude, and your childish remarks/conclusions is making it seem like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.

2. I'm acknowledging the fact that YOU think they look like they're going in different directions, and I'm pointing out that they DO NOT.




when they really aren't. Let me ask you guys a question,


1. Asking a question is not proving anything one way or the other. Its just asking a question. As in, you dont know.


I DO know the answer, I'm simply insinuating that YOU do not, and that if you thought about the question you would come to the conclusion you were wrong. Which you are.




if there are so many different lights that are making all these different shadows, then why are all the shadows lines so crisp and defined?


1. Now here is the answer to your question: Compositing, touch ups. Already stated numerous times without dispute.


Impossible, especially with the technology in 1969. I am well versed in editing images in photoshop (which they didn't have in 1969 btw), and even with today's technology it would be extremely time consuming to even come up with a single photo that looked anything close to as good as what they have, and they have plenty. In addition, even if it were possible, the question remains: Why? Why would they go to all the trouble to intentionally fake the photo's shadows to be going in the wrong directions(they aren't btw, you're just blind)? If they were going to the trouble to change the shadows, the would have made them correct(which they are).





Why is it that I always have to hold peoples hand? Are people really that stupid?



Maybe people assume you need help crossing the street. IDK, why do you ask and what does it have to do with the Apollo conspiracy?


The fact that you are too daft to understand the metaphorical analogy I was trying to make is hilarious, and quite sad at the same time. I'm not literally holding your hand, but I have to walk you through every single obvious detail because you're too stupid to figure it out on your own. Quite like I'm doing right now.


And you are still trying to "dodge" every single one of my posts by replying to select portions with childish remarks trying to change the subject any way you can. You have still yet to provide proof of how anything in the link I posted was fake, nor have you provided any proof of your claims in your previous post that I had asked for. Either do so, or we will have to assume you don't have any.
edit on 1-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Even more specifically you have not provided any evidence that the Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt is a factual document - although you have presented it as such, and demand that others provide evidence that it is NOT.



Let me try this again,
What evidence did I not provide? Please be specific.


which part of the description above are you having trouble with??


no answer??





What was the purpose of presenting the Torbitt Document?


You presented it - don't you know??



In conclusion you dont even know what you were talking about.


Wrong AGAIN - I don't know what YOU are talking about!

Which is why I said I was only speculating that you raised it to divert attention from your previously demonstrated lack of actual knowledge.

I know that I am talking about your demonstrated ignorance of rocket fuels and their plumes, and Apollo 8's vehicles, and your inability to tell us what it is about Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt that you consider to be factual.


Thanks for clearing that up.



you are welcome - I'll keep clearing it up for you for as often as you keep needing it to be cleared up!!


So - were you going to bother telling anyone why you raised Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt as some sort of evidence of a moon hoax, or why you consider it a factual document??

Or are you going to try to change the topic again??
edit on 1-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
377
<< 636  637  638    640  641  642 >>

log in

join